Mitch McConnell Has Adopted Obama’s “Yes We Can” Slogan

“To incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), it is more important for Republicans to be the party of yes than go all-out to defund President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty.”

Mitch McConnell is beginning to sound more like Obama every day. One of Obama’s campaign slogans was “yes we can.” A great slogan until voters finally figured out that what he meant was “yes we can . . . with your money.”

There are those in the Republican Party who are making money off of liberal boondoggles. They like government money, which, of course, is tax-payer money. GOP statists only oppose the Democrats on who gets the government largesse. Mitch McConnell is one of them. Unfortunately, there a lot more like him

For example, “[a] top Mitt Romney ally . . . has profited from Obamacare,” so why would this GOP insider want to say no to Obamacare? He’s making money when the government creates programs that have no constitutional basis. He’s using the State to steal for him.

take our poll - story continues below

Who is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?

Who is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?

Who is most likely to win the Democrat nomination?*

Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders

Email*

Email

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

If he stole from individual citizens on his own, he would go to jail, but if he can get elected officials to steal for him, well, that’s just good business.

There are times when a big, fat “no” is the only decision that can be made. Saying an emphatic “no” to slavery is a good example. The same can be said about abortion and same-sex marriage. There’s nothing wrong about being the party of “no” when what’s being said no to goes against the Constitution that these men and women took an oath to uphold.

Then there are the bad policy results of these programs. Initially, there are benefits to groups that the programs are designed to help. If I take a little bit of money from a lot of people and then give that money to a smaller number of people, that smaller numbered group will benefit.

Over time, however, additional programs are put into law with the same beneficial claims. Like the first program, the effects are marginal. But over time these incremental taxes begin to add up. Soon there are too many programs to manage and fund without additional money being required.

As more people find out that they can benefit from the free money taken from productive people, they jump on the benefits bandwagon.

Soon everything from paying for food, clothing, and housing has expanded to include education, healthcare, and contraceptives.

There comes a time when an economic tipping point is reached. But there are so many people benefitting from these programs – even people who claim to be conservatives – that any talk of reducing them or limiting them meets with stiff opposition. For example, how many conservatives want the government completely out of education at every level? I suspect that it’s not that many if it would mean that parents and college students would have to pay the full price for their children’s education.

The following is attributed to historian Alexander Fraser Tytler (or Tyler) (1747–1813). While I have not been able to find it in any of his writings, whoever wrote it understood what has happened to America politically as we moved from a Republic government by laws to a Democracy ruled by the majority:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

We are a nation where a majority of voters have discovered that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, that is, from productive tax payers by putting people in power that will do their bidding. Fifty percent of the voting population doesn’t pay a penny in federal income taxes. Why would they ever vote for a president, congressman, or senator who wants to cut taxes and spending?

Who benefits by the higher tax? The people who vote for the higher tax believe they will. Small business owners are the ones who will pay the higher tax. If they are taxed more, they can’t hire more people, invest in new equipment, and advertise for new business. The wolves end up devouring all the sheep like the countryman who killed the goose that laid golden eggs. “As he grew rich he grew greedy; and thinking to get all the gold the goose could give, he killed it and opened it only to find nothing.”

Soon we will be left with one big goose egg of an economy that’s thriving at the money in some sectors because the government is pumping digits into Wall Street.

Gary DeMar

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.